Evidence mapPaperPMID 37464128Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2023

Approaches to Management of Asthma: Guidelines for Stepped Care and Self-Monitoring.

Daniel Rosenberg, Philip Palmon

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel RosenbergUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Madison, WI, USA. drosenberg2@wisc.edu.
Philip PalmonUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the twentieth century brought rapid changes to the diagnosis and management of asthma, consensus guidelines did not exist until the mid-1980s. Over the subsequent four decades, guidelines evolved from expert-based recommendations to comprehensive, evidenced-based references. The main two guidelines to be discussed in this chapter are the expert panel reports (EPR) published by the United States National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention Report (GINA) published by the NHLBI and World Health Organization (WHO). While these guidelines both focus on evidence-based approaches to the diagnosis and management of asthma, there are significant differences in both organization and recommendations. Just as the introduction of evidence-based guidelines was revolutionary to asthma management over the last 20 years, we anticipate further development of recommendations specific to precision medicine based on ongoing cutting-edge clinical research.

Indexed as

Anti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaAcademies and InstitutesHumansPrecision MedicineUnited StatesWorld Health OrganizationAnti-Asthmatic AgentsDiagnosisEvidence-based guidelinesExacerbationsExpert panel reportImplementation guidelinesManagementPrecision medicinePrevention

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.